In Taplin Falls, Ltd. v. Brown, No. 4D2025-3894, slip op. at 1–4 (Fla. 4th DCA Oct. 28, 2026), the Fourth District considered whether a trial court could remove a substantive attorney-fee provision from a final judgment months after entering it.
The judgment and fee motion
The judgment reserved jurisdiction over fees and costs and expressly gave Taplin Falls 45 days to pursue them. Taplin Falls filed on the forty-fifth day. Nearly three months after the judgment, the trial court struck the 45-day provision on its own initiative and denied the fee motion as untimely.
The appellate decision
The Fourth District reversed. It explained that a perceived legal error in the original judgment did not, on the facts presented, authorize the later substantive change after the rehearing period had expired. The court distinguished a clerical correction from a change that materially altered the judgment’s effect and concluded that rule 1.540 did not supply a basis for the amendment described in the opinion. Taplin Falls, slip op. at 2–3.
The court directed reinstatement of the provision and consideration of the fee motion. It expressed no view on entitlement or amount. The court did not decide that the original 45-day provision was legally correct. Id. at 2, 4.
Practical takeaway
Read the judgment closely, calendar applicable deadlines, and assess any requested postjudgment relief under the governing rules and the specific procedural record. The opinion was marked not final until disposition of any timely rehearing motion.